Talk:Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article came up for review at WP:GAN. After reading through it thoroughly, I'm placing the article on hold for a couple of minor issues to be tweaked. Before I begin with a step-by-step list here, I would like to begin by commending the editors of this article for a job well done. It reads very well, it is cited very well, and I believe it is likely a future FA candidate.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is well written and the article is laid out very well. There are, however, a couple of areas that need some minor tweaks. First and foremost, the last paragraph of the section on the district court opinion reads like one quote, but is not indicated that way, especially this section: "But, the labeling requirement of "violent video game" is not factual information. The Act has not clearly and legally provided a way to determine if a video game is violent so the sticker does not convey factual information. Consequently the statute is unconstitutional." If it is a direct quote from the reference (the case), it needs to be indicated as such, and if it is not, it needs to be reworded to be explained that this was the court's opinion on the matter. This will help to avoid confusion and improve sentence fluency. Likewise, as we continue down the article, a lot of paragraphs begin the same way, as in "The court then went on"... or "In (insert month and year here)". While I wouldn't call rewording these a requirement for a GA, it would help future FA status to make sure the article reads fluidly; reusing the same opening to paragraphs over and over has a tendency to make articles read very choppy.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Again, a little concerned with the way the last paragraph of the district court opinion reads. Without the quote, it reads saying that labeling something a "violent video game" is original research because it's not clear in the writing where that definition comes from. I don't think it is original research, but rewording that section will resolve this. Also, there are a few red links in the article and references, which I would recommend delinking unless they later show enough notability to warrant an article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I like the coverage here. Very broad, and hits all the main points

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Reads very well and draws in both sides of the argument.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks to be quite stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image use is nice, and it all fits well.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Really, only one paragraph actually needs significant work, and everything else is pretty small. I'm going to leave this on hold, and I'll let you guys get back to me when you're ready.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 13:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've reworded the problematic section, which also sometimes conflated the district and Supreme courts. I'd like to deal with the other points in the future, but I'm about to go on a vacation for two weeks, so maybe this wasn't the best time for a GA nomination. I'll notify another interested editor who can follow up if you have additional concerns; otherwise, if you're willing to do me the courtesy of further holding until I return at the beginning of June, I'll be happy to do further work as necessary. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I was the one that had offered help to BDD if there were any issues post their work on this, as I helped flesh out the article on the SCOTUS case. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work! That one paragraph was really the only issue I was terribly concerned with, and it reads much better now. I'll be bold and snag your red links for you. While I do believe the sentence and paragraph fluency needs some help and the article could use a copyedit in order to advance to A or FA status, this is not required as one of the five MOS categories evaluated; therefore, I'd say we clearly meet the GA criteria at this time. Keep at it; I'm sure this can be an FA in a short amount of time. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 00:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to note as well that there are a few dead links in your references, but all of them are references that are not web-exclusive; i.e. magazines, newspapers, and one amicus brief. I still will pass this because the references are still there and because they exist in forms other than the web links, but again, for moving the article forward to A or FA, these links will have to be taken care of. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 00:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver is being weird but I think I can deal with all the redlinks in time through WAyback. That shouldn't be a problem (I've done a few already). --MASEM (t) 03:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)